Topic: Nobby's Green Thread. A great party with great ideas. A great bunch of lads!

[Jake]

Just joined yesterday.

Don't think there's a particular Green presence in Wakefield though.

[CornerFlag]

With the Labour party having its large lurch to the left and (presumably with the drop in numbers) attracting people from the left of the political spectrum, what could/can the Greens do to reinvigorate its potential voters?

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

With the Labour party having its large lurch to the left and (presumably with the drop in numbers) attracting people from the left of the political spectrum, what could/can the Greens do to reinvigorate its potential voters?

In other words: with the press and media telling us the Labour Party are having a large lurch to the left. In reality they are becoming the Labour Party again.

[CornerFlag]

In other words: with the press and media telling us the Labour Party are having a large lurch to the left. In reality they are becoming the Labour Party again.

No, in other words this is the Green Party thread discussing how Labour's shift is removing potential Green Party voters.

Do us a favour mate, there's a whole Labour Party thread up there to discuss any perceived biases of the press and media.  Use it to discuss that there.  All I'll say is while there are probably truths, Labour moves all the time along the political spectrum.

[Sudden Death Draft Loser]

No, in other words this is the Green Party thread discussing how Labour's shift is removing potential Green Party voters.

Do us a favour mate, there's a whole Labour Party thread up there to discuss any perceived biases of the press and media.  Use it to discuss that there.  All I'll say is while there are probably truths, Labour moves all the time along the political spectrum.

Fair enough.

How exactly is Labour's shift removing potential Green Party voters?  Are you suggesting that potential Green Party voters will move to Labour as it moves to the left?

[Alan_X]

In reality they are becoming the Labour Party again.

Read up on your history. The Labour Party was about representation in Parliament - the current leadership want to turn it into a protest movement.

[oldfordie]

Read up on your history. The Labour Party was about representation in Parliament - the current leadership want to turn it into a protest movement.

Only have to look at how easily the Torys outmaneuvered them on Triggering of article 50 vote to see they can't even do that properly now.

 

[SP]

With the Labour party having its large lurch to the left and (presumably with the drop in numbers) attracting people from the left of the political spectrum, what could/can the Greens do to reinvigorate its potential voters?

noname has actually touched on the likely opportunity. The policy differences are between Miliband and Corbyn are unlikely to make a huge difference. The opposition vacuum that the current shadow cabinet have left is a huge opportunity for the Greens to fill the void. They need the Green Frottage. Someone who has media ubiquity spreading the message. I have not been impressed by anyone bar Caroline Lucas - and I don't think she has the appetite for the wider role. There is a window of opportunity, but thus far it has been squandered.

[Yorkykopite]

There is indeed a void, but the Greens aren't capable of filling it. They are even more a party of internal 'direct democracy' than the Labour party has now become. That's to say they are a party controlled by activists - and consequently they are out of touch with the mass electorate and don't share the same concerns and fears as most people. Any Green party leader who wanted to move the party to the centre ground (unlikely in itself) would be overruled by this activist base which in social composition and ideological colour is very similar to the Labour party's new activist base (indeed there's probably a biggish overlap between the two!).

The void might be more plausibly filled by the Liberal Democrats. 

[CornerFlag]

Fair enough.

How exactly is Labour's shift removing potential Green Party voters?  Are you suggesting that potential Green Party voters will move to Labour as it moves to the left?

Because there's an obvious overlap in terms of who the perceived policies of each party target.  Social mobility, social equality, etc.  The environmental aspect of the Green Party is often termed in certain outlets as having negative impacts because of costs, hits to traditional sources of industry, etc., when the fact that the ability to harness essentially free energy will help the country and the world in the longer run.  The human race is pretty much short-term in their outlook in what will directly affect them, their socio-economic status and those around them; it takes a lot to impress upon people the timescales of some of the decisions made and how future generations can be affected by them.  2°C rises for a lot of people seems like an acceptable rise for a lot of people, but the devastation to the wider ecosystem will likely never be impressed on the species as a whole.

There are two leaders in the Green Party and I'd be impressed if more than half of you could name both leaders without looking it up, or the fact that Natalie Bennett isn't leader at all.  That's what worries me with the way a UKIP can rise to power with how much coverage the party can get (the number of appearances of members of each party on Question Time is one indicator) compared to a party like the Greens; the equality of coverage simply isn't there.

[-HH-]

There are two leaders in the Green Party and I'd be impressed if more than half of you could name both leaders without looking it up, or the fact that Natalie Bennett isn't leader at all.  That's what worries me with the way a UKIP can rise to power with how much coverage the party can get (the number of appearances of members of each party on Question Time is one indicator) compared to a party like the Greens; the equality of coverage simply isn't there.

I could. But as a Green Party member that feels a little like cheating.

[Jake]

Just joined yesterday.

Don't think there's a particular Green presence in Wakefield though.

Went to the AGM in Nov.

Me + 6 unorganised hippies and an obstinate old fart. Noone even took minutes.

How disappointing.

[Lush is the best medicine...]

Went to the AGM in Nov.

Me + 6 unorganised hippies and an obstinate old fart. Noone even took minutes.

How disappointing.

they must have all gone to the Labour Party

[Jake]

they must have all gone to the Labour Party

By the sounds of it not, there were two more people than last years AGM!

325,837 people in 2011 census.

7 people at the annual meeting of the party.

[CornerFlag]

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/green-party-jonathan-bartley-complaint-bbc-local-elections-2017-ukip-disproportionate-coverage-a7723626.html

Green Party complain to BBC about 'disproportionate' coverage of Ukip following local elections
'It's only fair we are given proportionate coverage by our national broadcaster' says co-leader Jonathan Bartley

The Green Party has accused the BBC of breaching impartiality guidelines by giving "disproportionate coverage" to Ukip’s near annihilation in last week's local council elections.

In a letter to the broadcaster, the party complained that the 40 seats it won were not given due attention in the analysis that followed.

“With the exception of a few items, most of the BBC’s coverage failed to report the Green Party’s results, while giving disproportionate coverage to Ukip,” it said.

The BBC’s guidelines state that the party, led jointly by MP Caroline Lucas and Jonathan Bartley, should be given coverage “proportionate to the larger parties” and “more than those parties with less evidence of past or current electoral support or fewer candidates.”

Candidates for the party stood in 54 per cent of the local election wards, up from 37 per cent in 2013.

Ukip meanwhile, contested 48 per cent of wards, a sharp decrease from 72 per cent in 2013. The party won a solitary seat in Lancashire, but lost 145 as voters deserted the party in droves.

In contrast, the Greens increased their seats by six, to win 40.

Mr Bartley said the BBC was failing to cover the steady progress made by the Green Party.

“While Ukip makes cheap attempts to win headlines with Islamophobic policies, Greens are making a difference in their local communities and this contrast was made clear in Friday’s election results,” he said.

He added that it was "only fair we’re given proportionate coverage by our national broadcaster."

The corporation’s draft guidelines for coverage of the forthcoming general elections state: “To achieve due impartiality, each bulletin, programme or programme strand, as well as online and social media channels, must ensure that the parties are covered proportionately over an appropriate period and overall across the Election Period. Determining appropriate levels of coverage should take into account levels of past and current electoral support.”

“Electoral support in the previous equivalent election is the starting point for making those judgements. However, other factors should be taken into account where appropriate, including evidence of variation in levels of support in more recent elections, changed political circumstances (e.g. new parties or party splits) as well as other evidence of current support. The number of candidates a party is standing may also be a factor.”

The BBC is regulated by Ofcom, which decided The Green Party should not have “major party status” during the 2015 general election, although Ukip should. It meant that then-leader Natalie Bennett could not take part in some of the television debates but former Ukip leader Nigel Frottage could.

In 2015, the Greens received 3.8 per cent of the popular vote while Ukip received 12.6 per cent.

The Greens, who have just one MP in Ms Lucas, have consistently called for proportional representation to replace the current, first-past-the-post system. The party has said it will not field candidates in a handful of seats where this might lead to the defeat of a candidate with whom the party has “common ground” in a bid to create a so-called “progressive alliance.”

The BBC has been contacted for comment.

Interesting dichotomy, it's like I want to watch the UKIP tits make a fool of themselves but I agree that the Greens aren't given nearly as much coverage as they should be getting.

[Red Beret]

I'm only surprised it has taken so long for somebody to finally complain.  It was a big talking point on here at the last election, with people pondering what UKIP was doing "right" compared to the Greens for them to accomplish in 20 years what the Greens have struggled 40 years to achieve.

But the Greens have an MP, whilst at best UKIP''s solitary MP was more a Tory Trojan.  And they're slowly building a solid foundation whilst single issue UKIP begin to crumble.  So what's happening?  I guess the simple answer is that in the UK the media bias favours the right (ironically in the US the media seems to be more centre left).  And not just the right - but the negative.

The news in the UK is disproportionately bad news - not shootings or bombings, but scaremongering and fear peddling.  I wont go so far as to say "fake" news, but negative sells.  It's news that panders to hate and prejudice; and stories/policies that could engender hope and empowerment are either sidelined or firmly squashed.

That's the reason UKIP do better than the Greens - somebody decided they were more newsworthy; probably because of the controversy.  And this is just my opinion, but even mocking the Greens' aspirations is probably either too easy for our right wing media, or too risky because somebody doesn't want to be seen as coming down negatively on environmental issues.  So it's easier to just ignore them and concentrate on immigrants.

[-HH-]

I'm only surprised it has taken so long for somebody to finally complain.  It was a big talking point on here at the last election, with people pondering what UKIP was doing "right" compared to the Greens for them to accomplish in 20 years what the Greens have struggled 40 years to achieve.

But the Greens have an MP, whilst at best UKIP''s solitary MP was more a Tory Trojan.  And they're slowly building a solid foundation whilst single issue UKIP begin to crumble.  So what's happening?  I guess the simple answer is that in the UK the media bias favours the right (ironically in the US the media seems to be more centre left).  And not just the right - but the negative.

The news in the UK is disproportionately bad news - not shootings or bombings, but scaremongering and fear peddling.  I wont go so far as to say "fake" news, but negative sells.  It's news that panders to hate and prejudice; and stories/policies that could engender hope and empowerment are either sidelined or firmly squashed.

That's the reason UKIP do better than the Greens - somebody decided they were more newsworthy; probably because of the controversy.  And this is just my opinion, but even mocking the Greens' aspirations is probably either too easy for our right wing media, or too risky because somebody doesn't want to be seen as coming down negatively on environmental issues.  So it's easier to just ignore them and concentrate on immigrants.

Good post. There was a statistic that said that UKIP have been represented on 1 in 4 QTs since 2010. There is no justification for that whatsoever.

[Jake]

Yeah I made a BBC complaint as well. The local elections coverage was shocking. I had to ctrl and f and look for the word green in one article.

[Yorkykopite]

After Natalie Bennett's experience in 2015 I'm surprised the Greens aren't insisting on a total media black-out this time round.

[CornerFlag]

Caroline Lucas isn't going to stand for re-election in the autumn.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/may/30/caroline-lucas-to-step-down-as-green-party-co-leader

Caroline Lucas has announced she will stand down as co-leader of the Greens in the autumn, saying it is time for others in the party to step forward and widen the pool of its prominent figures.

Lucas, for years the party’s sole nationally recognisable politician as well as its only MP, returned for a second stint as leader in 2016 on a joint ticket with Jonathan Bartley, who leads the opposition group on Lambeth council in south London.

The party requires it leaders to re-stand every two years, and Lucas told the Guardian that while she remained committed to her Brighton Pavilion constituency, she would not be continuing in the co-leader role.

“I think making space for other people at this point is a straightforward thing to do and a good thing to do,” she said. “We have a wonderful array of talent in the party and I would love the opportunity for more of that to be showcased.”

Nominations for the leadership and for a series of other senior party positions will be open during June, and there will be a vote in August.

Bartley has previously said he does not wish to be sole leader, and it is possible he could seek a joint ticket with another candidate. Other contenders could include Siân Berry, a member of the London assembly, and Cleo Lake, a Bristol councillor newly made the city’s lord mayor.

Lucas became the Greens’ first leader in 2008 after the party dropped its previous system of two “principal speakers”, and she increased her prominence further when she became an MP in 2010. She was replaced as leader by Natalie Bennett, who endured a difficult 2015 general election, after which Lucas and Bartley took over.

Lucas said she and Bartley had stabilised the party since then and introduced “a far greater culture of professionalism” during a period in which the party’s vote share was squeezed as Labour moved to the left.

“It’s no secret that we knew Jeremy Corbyn was going to take a lot of the space that we’ve been carving out for ourselves, so these were going to be challenging times and perhaps it was more important than ever to have at least one of our leaders in parliament,” she said.

In an article for the Guardian explaining her decision, Lucas argues she and Bartley are leaving the party in an improved position. “We focused relentlessly on electing Greens across the country. That’s meant more train journeys for me and Jonathan than I care to recall – which might explain why we’re both so passionate about public ownership of the railways,” she writes.

“The effects are already clear – our best local election results ever earlier this month, bringing the Green party to every corner of this country, and seeing us break on to new councils as diverse as Birmingham, Burnley and Richmond. The polls have now seen us overtake Ukip, and we’re closing in on the Lib Dems too.”

When it was announced that she and Bartley would lead jointly, the idea was mocked by many. Lucas said another achievement had been to show this could work: “I think we’ve really demonstrated something very important with this model. I remember a lot of people saying this isn’t going to work. I think we’ve demonstrated that it is not only workable but positively desirable and effective.”

She said this time she would not return. “I make it a point of principle never to rule anything out, but I cannot conceivably imagine at the moment any circumstance in which the party would be asking me to come back for a third time.”

[Circa1892]

Good news for the other bloke who was elected leader on her coattails. Can't imagine there'll be a great deal of competition as they don't have many "big names" around. Not entirely sure what their bag is these days - could do with some real rejuvenation.

[Jake]

Looks like we'll go from 1 MP to 0 MPs then. Shame.

[CornerFlag]

Looks like we'll go from 1 MP to 0 MPs then. Shame.

I think she's remaining as her constituency MP, just that she won't be leader any more, same as when she did the same thing but Natalie Bennett was leader.

[Jake]

I think she's remaining as her constituency MP, just that she won't be leader any more, same as when she did the same thing but Natalie Bennett was leader.

Ah just re-election as party leader, fair do's then.

I lost momentum in getting interested in the party cos my local one is such a fucking shambles.

[Andy @ Allerton!]

As we have a Tory and a Labour thread, it seems fair that we also have a Green thread.

Always admired them as a party and they seem to have a lot of great ideas.

[thaddeus]

You're on a roll, Andy!

I like many of the Green Party policies and would likely vote them under PR.  Under FPTP they're sadly a bit of a protest vote right now.

What I like about them is that they endorse long-term strategies e.g. reduced energy consumption, a move to renewables and energy self sufficiency.  They don't have an obsessive focus on economic growth but rather sustainable development.  They endorse international collaboration rather than nationalism.  They talk about addressing the root causes of crime rather than just being "tough on crime".  They are open to a Universal Basic Income.  I'm not an expert on Scandinavian politics but the Green Party seem like the closest thing we have to that.

For what it's worth I fear they will never get a large vote base due to their "world without borders" headline migration policy.  A watered down and constrained version of that with us being in the EU caused a large proportion of the electorate to lose their heads.

[classycarra]

green politics, sure, all on board. but the parties - no way. too unserious, too unrealistic, too anti-science, too cranky and too nimby.

also always too moral highgroundy - see Caroline Lucas saying 'don't do that' about building new nuclear power, but then when it's delayed saying 'it's taking too long' pretending she was on board with it in the first place. they're more at home with opposing things and blocking them than they are at constructively improving and enabling things.

NIMBYism is something that affects local politics of all parties unfortunately, but it's very much more a core part of the DNA that runs through the Lib Dems and Greens - they take so much pride in preventing infrastructure and housing projects, lying that there are more perfect ways to get things built when all they're doing is finding any old avenue to delay and prevent things.

it's not unique to UK either. just look at the insane ignorance of the german greens who (unlike their UK counterparts) contributed to 'achieving' some policy changes - only sadly their achievement was convincing enough people - through misinformation and misinterpretation and anti-science bollocks - to turn their backs on nuclear power. so now germany is more reliant on fossil fuels thanks for the most part to their green party. great work, team.

also the party is too filled with bigoted cranks for me. it's often become a resting home for those people on the fringes right and left (predominantly left) who can't get on board with a labour party seeking to win power when what they want is a labour. you just need to see some of the high profile cranks and bigots who've been welcomed with open arms into the green party after being expelled from labour

[Elmo!]

Yeah I broadly agree with a lot of what the Green party stand for, but I do find some of their anti-science stuff off putting (being anti-nuclear on environmental grounds. I'm not convinced on the economics of nuclear power but given the climate crisis we could really use nuclear power).

[duvva 💅]

I’m all in. Not quite sure why anyone would vote for anything else if they want a liveable world in a few years

I’m not deeply political don’t have enough in depth knowledge for it. I suppose I’d really like to understand what people have against them, why they’re not really taken seriously, historically at least.

Also why can’t this country get away from voting in a way that means only two parties will ever govern?

[TepidT2O]

Too many of the greens are also conspiracy theorist antisemites.

[Riquende]

Also why can’t this country get away from voting in a way that means only two parties will ever govern?

Because at least one of the two parties whose power is 'locked in' would have to propose it. If there's ever another hung parliament leading to a coalition government then the smaller party might be able to extract something, but whether it would have more legs than the LDs managed last time? I'm skeptical.

You'd think Labour might be more amenable than the Tories given they're the 'minority beneficiary' in the duopoly, but even then it's throwing away a near-guarantee of power 1/4-1/3 of the time in favour of a massive gamble that might see them never in power again, and even the party as it is completely broken up as FPTP 'broad tents' are no longer necessary.

[duvva 💅]

Because at least one of the two parties whose power is 'locked in' would have to propose it. If there's ever another hung parliament leading to a coalition government then the smaller party might be able to extract something, but whether it would have more legs than the LDs managed last time? I'm skeptical.

You'd think Labour might be more amenable than the Tories given they're the 'minority beneficiary' in the duopoly, but even then it's throwing away a near-guarantee of power 1/4-1/3 of the time in favour of a massive gamble that might see them never in power again, and even the party as it is completely broken up as FPTP 'broad tents' are no longer necessary.

I more meant why can no other party secure a majority. Why as an electorate do we feel there’s only really two proper parties?

It feels like it’s partly historical, kind of because “that’s just the way it is” or “that’s the way it’s always been”.

Nobody ever seems happy with government so why don’t they vote for something different?

[Red-Soldier]

I more meant why can no other party secure a majority. Why as an electorate do we feel there’s only really two proper parties?

It feels like it’s partly historical, kind of because “that’s just the way it is” or “that’s the way it’s always been”.

Nobody ever seems happy with government so why don’t they vote for something different?

It's our voting system.  FPTP means that we only ever get a Labour or a Tory government.  Straight choice of two.  It's fucking shite and totally undemocratic!

[Jiminy Cricket]

I more meant why can no other party secure a majority. Why as an electorate do we feel there’s only really two proper parties?

It feels like it’s partly historical, kind of because “that’s just the way it is” or “that’s the way it’s always been”.

Nobody ever seems happy with government so why don’t they vote for something different?

FPTP made a lot of sense when communication was slow. A system of local representatives (from local elections) and for them go and represent the region is a practical way to develop a democracy. (The US being a good example). But the reasons for developing such systems have long disappeared. It is self-interest (by the two main Parties in both countries) which perpetuates it.

[Sheer Magnetism]

I've always been a Green voter, since my two biggest deciders are environmentalism and economic redistribution. I understand the counter-argument from the Labour side, but someone needs to keep Labour honest. If there's no pull from the left, the party will simply keep on drifting right in search of Tory votes.

You only need to look at UKIP and the Conservative party to see the effect that kind of pull can have if it's executed correctly. I'm not even talking about crazy leftist stuff, just proper green policies and a tax system more in line with developed European countries.

[Jiminy Cricket]

I've always been a Green voter, since my two biggest deciders are environmentalism and economic redistribution. I understand the counter-argument from the Labour side, but someone needs to keep Labour honest. If there's no pull from the left, the party will simply keep on drifting right in search of Tory votes.

You only need to look at UKIP and the Conservative party to see the effect that kind of pull can have if it's executed correctly. I'm not even talking about crazy leftist stuff, just proper green policies and a tax system more in line with developed European countries.

I don't think this is the great argument you think it is.

[duvva 💅]

So is it not actually possible to vote in the Lib Dems, can they not physically win 370 seats for example?

[Circa1892]

Too many of the greens are also conspiracy theorist antisemites.

Yep.

For every Caroline Lucas they have at least a couple of cranks.

[thaddeus]

I don't think this is the great argument you think it is.

We're maybe reading it differently but I think it's a good argument.

If you were a far right Tory voter then seeing the Tories enacting UKIP polices (e.g. EU referendum) to avoid losing votes to them would have been great.  You get to have your cake and eat it.

Having a polar opposite party to UKIP on the left of Labour - the Green Party are as close as we have to that - needling Labour into enacting more leftist policies would suit many Labour voters.

It's a balance though to make sure you don't go too far and vacate the centre ground as that's where the rump of votes still reside.  Arguably that's what the Tories have done but I think it's just as likely that they're so incompetent and dislikeable that no policies they announce will reverse things.

[TheShanklyGates]

So is it not actually possible to vote in the Lib Dems, can they not physically win 370 seats for example?

Of course it's possible, but it's basic game theory. Say the Lib Dems are the party that most closely align with your views but you really, really dislike the Tories, a vote for the Lib Dems is a gamble whereby when you vote for your favourite party you risk the party that you want the least getting in. So you predict that if you instead switch your vote to Labour enough of your fellow voters will back Labour too and the Tories will be kept out. You end up not getting what you wanted but you also don't get what you really didn't want.

This video explains how FPTP essentially forces a 2 party system in the long run. Which 2 parties it is can occasionally change (see the Liberals being replaced by Labour in the early 20th century) but the result is always 2 parties which can get in and a bunch of smaller ones that can't.

<a href="https://www.youtube.com/v/s7tWHJfhiyo" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" class="bbc_link bbc_flash_disabled new_win">https://www.youtube.com/v/s7tWHJfhiyo</a>